Family and Community Violence Prevention (FCVP) Program

Family and Community Violence Prevention (FCVP) Program

FCVP Program 2002-03 Page 1

Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi

Family Life Center

End of Year Evaluation Report

2002 – 2003

IV. End of Year Report

A. Abstract

The TAMU-CC FLC is an after-school and summer violence and delinquency prevention program provided in an after-school format at Haas Middle School. The FLC provides programming in academic, personal, and career development, cultural and recreational enrichment, and family bonding. The program is delivered by full-time staff and part-time mentor, college students. A matched control group experimental design using survey instruments, school data, and qualitative methods is used primarily for the academic year program. A total of 420 hours of programming was provided in the academic year with and additional 120 hours provided in the summer enrichment period.

The mission of the FLC to reduce violence and behavioral problems while improving academic performance, self-esteem, and family bonding appears to have been successfully accomplished. Of 9 objectives, 6 were achieved and the remaining 3 were achieved in part. Participant youth demonstrated statistically significant changes across the period of the academic program in comparison to themselves and to the control group. The greater actual participation in program hours was correlated to higher levels in the desired behavior and attitude changes. Data comparing first and second year participants indicate a positive cumulative effect of program participation.

The FLC’s results can successfully be used to demonstrate the theoretical validity of the OJJDP/YOU links between risk and protective factors for juvenile delinquency. The FCVP’s logic model is also validated by these results.

B. Background

The prevention activities at the TAMU-CC FLC will be conducted in the context of the YOU ongoing community wide comprehensive strategic planning process that now in its seventh year. The process has followed that outlined in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) documents: Communities that Care Prevention Strategies: A Research Guide to What Works (2000) and Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (1998) and has adopted the theoretical model posed in those guides. The Youth Opportunities United Strategic Plan (1999) identified six of 18 risk factors studied as having the greatest effects on juvenile delinquency in Nueces County, Texas. These risk factors are addressed by the TAMU-CC FLC. Current data indicators show that the risk factors contribute to major problem behaviors among juveniles: delinquency, violence, substance abuse, school dropout, and teenage pregnancy. The data for the indicators is updated here from the most recent YOU reports (Data Collection and Analysis Workgroup, 2002 and Zambrano and Rhoades, 2002).

The most significant risk factor set in Nueces County is family management problems and family conflict. Child abuse investigations performed by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services rose from 2,473 in 1996 to 3,068 in 2002 within Nueces County. From these, came 1.211 confirmed victims of child abuse in 2002 for a 12.2% increase over 1996 (see Chart 1). The rate of confirmed victims per 1,000 children in Nueces County in 2002 was 13.6 while the rate for the State of Texas was only 7.9. From 1994 to 2002, Driscoll Children’s Hospital reports a 127% increase in the number of children treated for child abuse. Texas police reported a rate for family violence complaints of 8.4 per 1,000 in 2000 while Nueces County’s rate was 14.0 (see Chart 2). From 1993 to 2001, the number of victims provided services from the Texas Department of Human Services due to family violence increased 88.1% while in Nueces County the increase was 240.9%. In 2002, the Texas rate per 1,000 children placed in foster homes was 4.1 while in Nueces County it was double at 8.3. Finally, in 1999 the U.S. rate of divorce per 1,000 population was 4.0 while in Texas it was 3.9 and in Nueces County it was 4.8. In 2000, the County rate increased to 4.7. Clearly, the risk factors of family management problems and family conflict are driving juvenile delinquency in the community.

Locally, extreme economic deprivation is evidenced by the fact that in 2000 only 11.3% of the nation’s families were living in poverty, while 14.9% of the Texas and 22.3% of the Nueces County families were living in poverty. For the County, this reflects an increase of nearly two percent from 1993. The per capita income for Nueces County for 2000 was $24,013 (see Chart 3). This was only 86.5% of the Texas per capita income and 81.5% of the U.S. per capita income. While median family income in the nation and Texas increased from 2000 to 2001, it decreased 10.3% in Nueces County. Nueces County has experienced higher unemployment rates than the State and the Nation for several decades. In 2002, the U.S. and Texas unemployment rates were 4.8%, but in Nueces County, it was 5.7% (see Chart 4). It increased to 6.1 in 2002. In Texas, 40.5% of school children qualified for free or reduced lunches in 2001-2002 while in the Corpus Christi Independent School District, CCISD, 56.8% qualified.

For Nueces County, favorable parental attitudes and involvement in the problem behavior has been placed into the priority risk factors. After a decline from 1997 to 1999 adult alcohol related arrests increased 4.7% from 1999 to 2000. Adult arrests for drug abuse violations increased 9.9% in the State from 1997 to 2000, but increased 15.3% in Nueces County (see Chart 5). Sales tax receipts for the purchase of mixed beverages have increased 25.4% from 1993 to 2001 in the County. While adult arrest for property and violent crimes have declined, the evidence indicates that adult use and abuse of alcohol and drugs has increased. Thus, the examples, the role models, provided to Nueces County children are likely to encourage alcohol and drug use.

This can be seen in the fourth primary risk factor, early onset of the problem behavior. The number of arrests of juveniles ages 10 to 14 for alcohol and drug offenses in Nueces County increased 203% from 1993 to 1999 (see Chart 6). However, arrests of juveniles for property and violent crimes have dropped. Nueces County juveniles seeking treatment from the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse report starting their use of alcohol and marijuana one to two years earlier than juveniles Statewide. The YOU Survey 2000 indicated that 16% of surveyed students began their drug or alcohol use at age 10 and an additional 29.6% began by age 13 (see Chart 7). These proportions are higher than those found in Statewide surveys. Nueces County had the highest proportion of births to mothers 17 years of age and younger of any Texas county several times in the past decade. For 2000, the Texas figure was 5.7% while that for Nueces County was 7.2%. This is down from the 1995 high of 9.7% for the County.

In addition to the primary risk factors, the risk factors early academic failure and lack of commitment to school contribute to the delinquency in Nueces County. The proportion of adults in 2000 that had not-completed high school for the U.S. was 19.6%, for Texas it was 24.4%, and for the County it was 25.6%. The Texas Education Agency reported in 1996 that the longitudinal drop out rate for the State was 9.1% that was higher than the U.S. rate of 5%. The rate for CCISD was significantly higher at 13.4%. The annual dropout rates for CCISD has been higher than that for the State until 1999-2000 when it tied the State rate then and for 2000-2001 (see Chart 8). The annual attendance rates for Nueces County school districts are now similar to that for the State. Test scores for CCISD students have remained below those for the State as a whole on academic skill tests and on the SAT/ACT tests.

These risk factors operate within a context of adult and juvenile crime out of proportion for the County’s population. A 1999 study of the Corpus Christi Police Department by the International Association of Chief of Police, Achieving the Commitment, compared Corpus Christi to the 14 other largest cities in Texas. While Corpus Christi ranked 8th in population, it ranked 1st in overall serious crime rate and 5th in violent crime. It reported that juvenile arrests for aggravated assault increased 228% from 1993 to 1997.

The TAMUCC FLC is presently located at Haas Middle School. Its student and family population is typical of those most affected by the Nueces County risk factors. Within the YOU effort, Haas was selected because middle schools with larger proportions of at-risk students within the Corpus Christi Independent School District (CCISD) were already being served by some form of an after-school intervention program. Recently available year 2000 data for postal zip codes in Nueces County indicate that the 78412 zip code surrounding Haas ranked 15th in the rate of child abuse, 15th in the rate of individuals receiving Temporary Assistance to Need Families, 14th in the adult arrest rate for drug offenses, 13th in the adult arrest rate for alcohol offenses, and 13th in the rate of adults receiving mental health services per 1,000 population among the 25 postal codes for which data were available. All other zip codes that rated worse than 78412 and that are overlapped by CCISD boundaries contain middle schools with other after-school intervention programs. These data indicate that the risk factors family conflict, extreme economic deprivation, and favorable parental attitudes and involvement in the problem behaviors are present in the part of the community served by Haas Middle School and the TAMU-CC FLC.

For the 2001-2002 school year, Haas had a total enrollment of 485. Of these, 233 or 48.0% were eligible for free/reduced lunch. This is another data indicator for the risk factor extreme economic deprivation. The risk factors academic failure and lack of commitment to school are also present at Haas. Some 4.4% of 7th graders were retained (not promoted to 8th grade) compared to only 2.5% for the State. The attendance rate in 2000-2001 for Haas was 94.7% that was .2% lower than the previous year and .5% lower than the District. The attendance rate for African-American students at Haas was 95.1% but for Hispanic students it was only 94.2%. The 2002 Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) results for Haas indicated that 91.6% passed the reading portion which was higher than the District’s 90.3%. However, only 76.6% of Haas students passed the writing portion and 88.6% passed the math portion of the TAAS. The District reported better results with 88.5% passing the writing portion and 89.9% passing the reading portion. Fewer Haas Hispanic and African-American students passed than Haas students as a whole. Only 89.5% of Hispanic students passed the reading portion, 71.1% passed the writing portion, and 86.5% passed the math portion. Similarly, only 87.9% of African-American students passed the reading portion, 63.6% passed the writing portion, and 85.3% passed the math portion.

The student population at Haas also demonstrates the risk factor early initiation of the problem behaviors. A total of 926 disciplinary referrals resulting in corrective action were reported from August through March of the 2002-2003 school year. Of these 23.3% were for forms of assault, 2.3% for sexual assault, and 2.6% for robbery. This is a total of 28.2% of the referrals that were clearly related to violent behavior. An additional 37.2% of the referrals were for behavior that was disruptive of a classroom, an activity, or a part of the school campus. Only 1.7% of the referrals were for alcohol, tobacco, or drug offenses on campus.

Goals for the TAMU-CC FLC for 2002-2003:

  1. Academic Development: To increase by 10% the proportion of participants passing the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills Test by end of academic program.
  2. Academic Development: To increase the cumulative Grade Point Average by .05 of all participants by the end of the academic program.
  3. Academic Development: To increase bonding to school by 10% over the baseline among all participating youth on SBI-R by end of the program year.
  4. Cultural Development: To increase the level of affiliation and belonging to their ethnic group by 10% of all participants as measured by the MEIM by end of the program year.
  5. Career Development: To improve attitudes toward employment by 10% over the baseline of all participants as measured by the CMI by end of the program year.
  6. Personal Development-Recreational Enrichment: To reduce the incidence of truancy among all participants by 10% by the end of the academic program.
  7. Personal Development-Recreational Enrichment: To reduce the incidence of in school behavioral problems by 10% of all participating youth by the end of the academic program.
  8. Personal Development-Recreational Enrichment: To increase self-esteem by 10% of the participating youth as measured by the Rosenberg scale by the end of the program year.
  9. Family Bonding: To increase family bonding among all participants by 10% as measured by the FES by the end of the program year.

C. Method

  1. Program Design:

The TAMU--CC FLC used the combined program in 2002-2003. In this design, youth that participated in the academic program may also participate in the summer program. However, the summer program may include additional youth that did not participate in the FLC program for the academic year. Also, the TAMU—CC FLC planned to use a comparison group, pre-test and post-test evaluation design.

  1. Participants:

Note that all tables for the evaluation sections are found in the Appendices. Demographic data for the academic year participants and comparison groups are provided on Table 1. The program began with 63 participants and ended with completed post-test data for 45. It began with 52 in the comparison group and ended with completed post-test data for 37 with demographics for only 35. The majority of the losses from both groups were due to transfers to other schools or transfers out of the school district. However, five (5) of the comparison group were expelled to the Student Learning and Guidance Center. None of the participants were expelled.

As reported on Table 1, the participant group included 7 more females than males while the comparison group included 8 more males than females at the time of the pre-test in September 2002. By May 2003 and the post-test, the participant group included 5 more females than males and the comparison group included 7 more males than females. A majority (35) of the participants were Hispanic with the remainder evenly divided between Anglos and a combined Black/Other category. The comparison group was also predominately Hispanic (30) and contained slightly more Black/Other students.

At the post-test, the mean age for participants was 12.69 and for the comparison group it was 13.00. This is not a statistically significant difference.

No difference was found between the two groups in the total number of persons living in the home and the number of adults living in the home. The mean number of persons in the home for participants was 5.16 and for comparisons it was 4.30. This difference is not statistically significant. The mean number of adults in the participants’ homes was 2.14 and for comparisons it was 2.16.

Marital status of the parents for the groups at post-test was similar, but with participants indicating more separated or divorced parents and fewer married parents. For participants, 27.3% reported married parents, 43.2% reported separated or divorced parents, and 22.7% reported never married parents. For comparisons, 34.3% reported married parents, 34.3% reported divorced parents, and 20.0% reported never married parents. The groups were also similar in reported contact with parents. Of participants 84.4% reported daily contact with their mother and 31.1% reported daily contact with their fathers. This compares to 82.9% and 51.4% respectively for comparisons. The difference in contact with fathers (when coded into 3 categories) is statistically significant with Chi Square = 6.896, Phi = .294 at p = .032.

At the pre-test, 32.2% of the participants and 33.3% of the comparisons indicated that they had been suspended from school in the previous year. Of the participants at post-test, 24.4% had been suspended, but none had been expelled in the year. For the post-test comparison group, 41.2% had been suspended and 2.9% had been expelled in the year.

  1. Instruments:

The pre- and post-test instruments used at the TAMU-CC FLC include those in the common cross-site set required from all programs by the Family and Community Violence Prevention Program. These instruments include those on the following list.

  1. The Violence Risk Assessment Inventory that includes a Violence Risk Index of 20 items covering the past three months and a High Risk Index of three items covering the past six months.
  2. The Wide Range Achievement Test 3rd Revision that measures the respondent’s spelling and math achievement and provides standardized scores based on age.
  3. The School Bonding Index Revised that consists of 24 items summed into four scales: Experience, Involvement, Delinquency, and Pride.
  4. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale that provides a single score for self-esteem from a ten item questionnaire.
  5. The Family Environment Scales that contain 90 items summed into ten scales: Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, Independence, Achievement Orientation, Active-Recreational Orientation, Moral-Religious Emphasis, Organization, and Control.
  6. The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure that consists of 12 items summed into two scales: Ethnic Identity Search and Affiliation.
  7. The Career Maturity Inventory that consists of 25 questions resulting in a single score concerning the respondents attitude about employment.

In addition to the cross-site instruments, a revised version of the Youth Opportunities United Middle School/Junior High Student Survey—2000 was used (a copy is appended). The YOU Survey is primarily concerned with behavior measures. These include tobacco, alcohol and drug use, truancy, carrying weapons at school, and victimization measures. It includes questions concerning the youth’s sense of safety, and participation in programs and services. The revision involved the deletion of questions that have not been found to be useful in prior analysis and the inclusion of twelve (12) evaluative questions. These questions solicit opinions about the programming of the FLC and its effects from the participants.

Top View